Thinking is something that some people shun and do not touch with a ten-foot pole, while others fully and often willingly immerse themselves in it. While we expect and assume writers, poets, artists, and professors to be almost always lost in thought and reverie, there are many who would try to fill their time and schedules to such an extent that thought becomes unthinkable, impossible, or at least, impractical and unfeasible. Some seem to be afraid of thinking about things and would rather not enter or face this fascinating and fantastic realm.
At the same time, we often assume that we instinctively
know how to think. Maybe we think that we are simply born with it, or we may
believe it to be a sign and manifestation of intelligence, which we may or may
not think we possess. At any rate, we might conceive of thinking as dance
moves, meaning you either got rhythm, or you don’t. For others, it may not
necessarily be the mechanism itself, but they may complain or be worried about the
content or the lack thereof. They may simply be afraid to look into the
recesses of the mind where something scary and revealing may be lurking and
waiting to be unleashed.
For me, thinking has been part of my life as far back
as I can remember. Especially during adolescence, I was prone to thinking about - for lack of a better word - the human condition, and so I was drawn to and
fascinated by the fields of philosophy and psychology apart from film and
literature. I would often find myself creating situations and scenarios for
upcoming books and novels, but all this time, I took thinking for granted and
did not question or analyze it. Not only did I believe others to enjoy the act
of thinking as much as I did, but I was also not aware of the weaknesses and
fallibility of the thinking process itself.
Enter Richard E. Nisbett’s book “thinking: A Memoir.” When
I was offered the opportunity to review this magnificent book by the renowned
social and cognitive psychologist, I did not have to give it a second thought
but acted immediately (thank you, Kelsey, for bringing the book to my attention!). I
do not mind nor regret my decision to read and think about this book as it
is not only thoughtful but also insightful, while also filling in many
gaps of my knowledge and understanding. As a matter of fact, it supplied me with important
new fresh perspectives of seeing and understanding this seemingly crazy world that we
are currently living in.
First and foremost, our thinking is flawed and prone
to error. Naturally, this has an evolutionary purpose and is meant to enhance
our protection and survival. Our heuristic pragmatic brain is calibrated to
err on the side of caution. In most cases and situations, we may forgive and be even thankful for our brain to underplay logic; it would give priority to logical
fallacies as it would overplay and trump threat and negativity over other
things. When a well-trodden path that has always served you well suddenly poses
a life-threatening threat to one of your close contacts, you start
thinking twice about it and may avoid it like the plague.
For this reason, we instinctively and often
unconsciously prioritize negative information over positive ones. A single
plane crash may in fact rattle us and instill a subsequent fear of or at least
preoccupation about flying. As Nisbett points out, many of us have the natural
proclivity to not fully grasp and understand statistics alongside the implications,
connections, and inferences related to large numbers and probability. Our brain
is too focused on salient and dramatic information as opposed to verifiable facts
and numbers. The media pounces on this human susceptibility and plays with our
emotions for their own benefit. Although the information may not be false in
and of itself, its presentation and its representation may become prone to
misperceptions and misunderstandings.
Nowhere is this more apparent nowadays than with the topic
of vaccines. We may hear that they are overall safe and effective but if a
friend of a friend had an adverse reaction, we tend to falsely conclude that it
is, as a rule, unsafe and not worth the risk. We would give more prevalence to
anecdotal information and experiences over general trends and findings. As Nisbett
himself puts it, “We’re too influenced by a little data and too unimpressed by a
lot of data.”
As we can see and easily imagine, this type of fallacy can backfire in various situations. And yet, critical thinking is something that can be taught, trained, and learned. Nisbett found that students manage to learn and apply these thinking skills and that this has been of great benefit to their daily life and their decision-making overall.
But again, many of us are naturally prone to making errors in our thought processes. It is not necessarily due to a lack of information or a lack of intelligence, but it can come
down to how information and events are framed and presented to us. A medical
doctor who is offered a medication that has a 90% survival rate for patients
would not hesitate to accept it, while another who is told that it has a 10%
death rate would refuse the same life-saving medication. It is a matter of
clarity, perspective, and awareness of such underlying phenomena that can help
us make more informed and wiser decisions for ourselves as well as for others.
Another issue of potential concern is the fundamental attribution
error. We tend to attribute our own actions and misdeeds to external situations
and circumstances, such as “I was late because of traffic”. At the same time,
we tend to attribute the actions of others almost exclusively to personal
characteristics, failings as well as flaws of their personality, such as “she
was late because she is an unpunctual person”. Combining the two trains of thought,
we can see how stereotypes influence our perception and vice versa. Taking and
seeing people’s behaviors completely out of context, adding one’s own biased
thinking into the mix, which is often based on small samples of personal
experiences and anecdotal information, and then framing it in a way that would
confirm our own misguided beliefs and prejudices can explain how racial, sexual
as well as other types of discrimination are propagated in various ways and
manners.
We all have preconceived notions, biases, and judgments
that need to be put to the test, examined, and re-examined on a continuous
basis. Much of the information may be out of date, simply wrong, or based on
misinformation and misunderstanding. In fact, even science is not safe from it
as findings are generally not absolute and eternal; instead, they often change
and need to be modified. For centuries, Newton’s laws were absolute and
universal, and then, Einstein brought us relativity. We have been told that
coffee is bad for us, and then, we are presented with various health benefits.
And nowhere become these fluctuations, adjustments, and modifications more
apparent than during the Covid crisis. The whole situation is akin to scientists
trying to predict where a plane is going without knowing its destination while
at the same time trying to fix and repair it in mid-flight.
But let us return to our individual examples of how
our unique personal ways of thinking affect our thoughts and judgments. Another
important factor is the influence of culture in terms of our ways of thinking,
understanding, and even our problem-solving skills. Nisbett provides fascinating
ground-breaking research and insight into how Westerners and Asians have
fundamental differences in their thinking and perception of the world. In fact,
Eastern and Western minds handle cognitive processes in different ways and at
different locations in their structurally different brains!
For instance, the Eastern mind is prone to see,
interpret, and think in holistic, curvilinear, and circular ways, while the
Western mind prefers logical, compartmentalized, and linear thinking. It comes
as little surprise that science with its quest for absolute and universal rules
and laws appealed to and flourished more in western parts of the world. The
Asian worldview is less interested in permanence but sees reality as a process with a world in constant flux, which is driven by continuous change. In holistic
thinking, nothing is nor can be isolated or independent, but everything is interconnected.
This affects each individual psychologically as well.
A Western mind would prefer to think of themselves as an individual self and
agent, while the Eastern mind would see themselves in relation to others. In fact,
as Nisbett puts it, interdependence requires attention to people, while
independence primarily focuses on one’s own goals and plans. In other words, Westerners
tend to define themselves as separate agents and zone into their salient
features while Asians prefer to define themselves via their connections and
relationships to others.
In a study, Americans and Japanese were shown
underwater scenes and were told to report back on what they had seen. In fact,
the Japanese reported 60 percent more information about the environment, such
as rocks, plants, and small animals, whereas Americans tend to focus more
on salient features and be less interested in the surroundings.
In another study, which you can incidentally try out
and experiment with friends and family members, subjects were given various
word triplets, such as monkey, panda, and banana, and were asked to tell which
two objects went together. It turned out that Asians were more likely to say
that the monkey goes with the banana because monkeys eat bananas, whereas
Americans were more likely to say the monkey goes with the panda because both
are animals.
In fact, my Mexican-born wife chose the banana, while
my Canadian son, not unsurprisingly to me, chose the panda. Mexicans have a
tendency to see themselves as intimately and collectively connected to their
family and society, while Canadians prefer to see and define themselves as
separate individual entities. But before we jump to conclusions here, we should
keep in mind the concept of confirmation bias, namely the tendency to look for
evidence to support a given theory at the expense of looking for or accepting
evidence that would tend to refute it. We can also add the current temptation of
getting comfortably settled in our very own echo chambers of sorts.
Yet, all things considered, I think it becomes clear and evident that we should not take thinking for granted. Not only does it affect self-knowledge and our own personal lives but also many lives around us, and beyond. To truly accept and understand others, we need to empathize with them and put ourselves in their shoes.
No matter who we are or where we come
from, I think empathy with a healthy sense of curiosity should round out our
perception of ourselves as well as of others. Finally, we should keep this in
mind: Although there are individual and cultural differences and even
individual differences and variations within the cultures themselves, it is
important not to lose sight of these facts and to give them some serious thought
and reflection. And to improve upon your own thinking skills, you can pick up a
copy of this excellent book and/or sign up for a free online course (I know I
have) available at Coursera created by the author of this book himself entitled Mindware: Critical Thinking for the Information Age!